Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[Novocastrian]

Indeed. But I’m handicapped due to the fact that I came of age before 1984.

Annie

BTW I’m glad that you see that this captures the essence of the debate since others might think that it is off topic.

False dichotomy between language as inherent meaning and doublespeak. What I mean is that language is contextual. The word “fire” can mean different things depending on how and where it is deployed. In the workplace it’s a verb meaning to get rid of an employee; in the military it might refer to using a weapon; in other contexts it might refer to something burning. This isn’t to deny that words really do have meaning, but just to say that it’s more complicated than first meets the eye.

What you’re failing to recognise is that you and the Lutherans are using the term sola scriptura in different contexts. You’re using it relative to the RC rejection of Protestant theological method, and they’re using it within the tradition of ‘Lutheran’/Evangelical Catholic/Augsburg doctrine. This is why your arguments are being rejected.

 

[Annie39]

False dichotomy between language as inherent meaning and doublespeak. What I mean is that language is contextual. The word “fire” can mean different things depending on how and where it is deployed. In the workplace it’s a verb meaning to get rid of an employee; in the military it might refer to using a weapon; in other contexts it might refer to something burning. This isn’t to deny that words really do have meaning, but just to say that it’s more complicated than first meets the eye.

What you’re failing to recognise is that you and the Lutherans are using the term sola scriptura in different contexts. You’re using it relative to the RC rejection of Protestant theological method, and they’re using it within the tradition of ‘Lutheran’/Evangelical Catholic/Augsburg doctrine. This is why your arguments are being rejected.

Its absolutly perfect.

 

[Annie39]

He is wrong. You did not attend an evangelische parish in the 1520’s, I assume. So, the practice of the parish you did attend should have been to use the confessions for catechesis. The way you portrayed that Lutheran parish as not using the confessions for catechesis is outside Lutheran practice. This is a fact. EC has presented his experience in the LCMS in his youth. I presented mine as a youth in an LCA parish. My son was confirmed in an ELCA parish, my daughter in an LCMS parish. The practices were essentially the same. The confessions are used for catechesis, child and adult.

You can claim, without reading the confessions, that you know more about how Lutheran parishes are supposed to do catechesis. As I said before, that’s fine.

So, you wouldn’t expect me to read the CCC when you want me to understand a Catholic teaching. I frankly do not understand this concept.

Who says? The confessions are the barometer of Lutheran practice. We practice sola scriptura. That Luther did something different or not doesn’t matter. You didn’t attend an evangelische parish in the 1520’s, so your experience should have reflected Lutheran practice, not Martin Luther. And Lutheran practice is to use extra-biblical documents, as the confessions tell us to teach. And teachings, regardless of their sourcve, are normed by scripture. That’s sola scriptura.

Well, thanks. I don’t think you are being disingenuous either. But being unwilling to read the symbols of the Lutheran Church puts you in a position of discussing something without the appropriate background information.

Even though I consider myself as part of the true Church, if by no other means than by Baptism, I appreciate the kind invitation.

I already do, but again, thanks.

His peace also with you,
Jon

I don’t rememer who mentioned it but somewhere along this thread someone said that Lutherans probably should not call themselves Lutheran because it is obvious that they don’t agree with Luther. You indeed a part of the Church by means of baptism. Now come clear way home and receive the true Sacraments.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t rememer who mentioned it but somewhere along this thread someone said that Lutherans probably should not call themselves Lutheran because it is obvious that they don’t agree with Luther.

Agree with Luther about what? See, that’s the point. Luther is not accepted in toto, as he is subject to sola scriptura, and was a mere man. Neither is he rejected in toto, even by most Catholics.
The name “Lutheran” has its roots as a slur, an attempt to marginalize the evangelicals by linking them to just Luther, a ploy we see played out still at times. Roman Catholic has the same type of roots. And in the same way, but are, to one degree or another, accepted by the descendants within the two communions. Curiously, I and others have been criticized for using the alternative, Evangelical Catholic, by some as well.

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I don’t rememer who mentioned it but somewhere along this thread someone said that Lutherans probably should not call themselves Lutheran because it is obvious that they don’t agree with Luther. You indeed a part of the Church by means of baptism. Now come clear way home and receive the true Sacraments.

What do you think we should call ourselves?

 

[JonNC]

What do you think we should call ourselves?

Prediction: Latin Catholic.

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Prediction: Latin Catholic.

Jon

Sure, I would call myself “Latin Catholic” I think that would elicit some rather strong feelings from Roman Catholics though.

 

[Novocastrian]

Prediction: Latin Catholic.

Jon

German Orthodox?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

German Orthodox?

How about Scandinavian Apostolic?

 

[spina1953]

According to Book of Concord.org. It says that the Lutheran Reformation started not as a revolt, which in some sense I find hard to believe, be it as that may. it goes no to say is was due to and concerning false and misleading teachings which unfortunately even to this very day, obscure the glory and merit of Jesus Christ. My question then is how so? what teaching are misleading and false and obscure the glory and merit of Jesus Christ? I guess I am not understanding this at all. It seems to me that Lutheran posters say we are close to Catholic beliefs, yet, from this it does not seem so. I am not trying to be rude or argumentative, just wanting to understand what false and misleading teaching Catholic’s are teaching.

 

[JonNC]

According to Book of Concord.org. It says that the Lutheran Reformation started not as a revolt, which in some sense I find hard to believe, be it as that may. it goes no to say is was due to and concerning false and misleading teachings which unfortunately even to this very day, obscure the glory and merit of Jesus Christ. My question then is how so? what teaching are misleading and false and obscure the glory and merit of Jesus Christ? I guess I am not understanding this at all. It seems to me that Lutheran posters say we are close to Catholic beliefs, yet, from this it does not seem so. I am not trying to be rude or argumentative, just wanting to understand what false and misleading teaching Catholic’s are teaching.

Read the Augsburg Confession now. It explains them.
After each article, there is a link to the Roman Confutation, and a link to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Read the Augsburg Confession now. It explains them.
After each article, there is a link to the Roman Confutation, and a link to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Jon

Hi Jon: Over the past couple of weeks I have been reading to both the confession and the Roman refutation. I just thought that someone might point out what some of what Lutheran’s consider false and misleading and why it seems that it is still believed?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon: Over the past couple of weeks I have been reading to both the confession and the Roman refutation. I just thought that someone might point out what some of what Lutheran’s consider false and misleading and why it seems that it is still believed?

From my personal perspective, far fewer than used to be. The Lutheran Reformation had a central focus on Justification, and many of the issues revolve around that. In many ways for me, soteriology is no longer a significant divide. Ecclesiology, however, is.
The universal jurisdiction of the pope seems beyond the intent of Christ in scripture, and the early Church in council.
Other issues that some Lutherans will mentions:
Sacrifice of the Mass
Treasury of Merit
Requirement of Invocation of the Saints

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

From my personal perspective, far fewer than used to be. The Lutheran Reformation had a central focus on Justification, and many of the issues revolve around that. In many ways for me, soteriology is no longer a significant divide. Ecclesiology, however, is.
The universal jurisdiction of the pope seems beyond the intent of Christ in scripture, and the early Church in council.
Other issues that some Lutherans will mentions:
Sacrifice of the Mass
Treasury of Merit
Requirement of Invocation of the Saints

Jon

So Catholics require the faithful to invoke the saints? And, of-course, you are aware that Lutherans do not reject invocation of the saints.

 

[JonNC]

So Catholics require the faithful to invoke the saints? And, of-course, you are aware that Lutherans do not reject invocation of the saints.

That was the language that Melanchthon used in the apology:

The Twenty-first Article they absolutely condemn, because we do not** require **the invocation of saints. Nor on any topic do they speak more eloquently and with more prolixity. Nevertheless they do not effect anything else than that the saints should be honored; likewise, that the saints who live pray for others; as though, indeed, the invocation of dead saints were on that account necessary.

The position of the reformers was that there is no command, example, or promise regarding them. I think most Lutherans, if they know the confessions, know that Invocation is not overtly rejected, but that the view was far more nuanced than that.

Note also, EC, that I said some Lutherans would mention that. I do not practice invocation, but neither do I condemn it.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

That was the language that Melancholy used in the apology:

The position of the reformers was that there is no command, example, or promise regarding them. I think most Lutherans, if they know the confessions, know that Invocation is not overtly rejected, but that the view was far more nuanced than that.

Note also, EC, that I said some Lutherans would mention that. I do not practice invocation, but neither do I condemn it.

Jon

Of-course I know we believe the same on invocation of the saints. My question which I raised on a new thread, questions if Catholics are required to invoke the saints.

 

[joe371]

Of-course I know we believe the same on invocation of the saints. My question which I raised on a new thread, questions if Catholics are required to invoke the saints.

No. You can take your prayers right to God…That said, as per the CCC:

956 The intercession of the saints. “Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. . . . They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus . . . . So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped.”

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No. You can take your prayers right to God…That siad, as per the CCC:

956 The intercession of the saints. “Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. . . . They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus . . . . So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped.”

Affirmed by Lutherans.

 

[joe371]

Affirmed by Lutherans.

 

[spina1953]

From my personal perspective, far fewer than used to be. The Lutheran Reformation had a central focus on Justification, and many of the issues revolve around that. In many ways for me, soteriology is no longer a significant divide. Ecclesiology, however, is.
The universal jurisdiction of the pope seems beyond the intent of Christ in scripture, and the early Church in council.
Other issues that some Lutherans will mentions:
Sacrifice of the Mass
Treasury of Merit
Requirement of Invocation of the Saints

Jon

Ok I can understand that from your own personal perspective, and that I think you are saying is that there are far fewer differences than there used to be. I agree that it seems that the central focus was about Justification, between what Paul was saying and what James was saying, at least from what I have so far gathered.

Luther it seems concluded that the canons as interpreted by Roman or Catholic officials conflicted with Scriptures. Catholic’s it seems argue that it was or is not about the supremacy of Scripture, but rather the proper interpretation of it. From what I have read it appears that both James and Paul have been misinterpreted concerning Justification and works and faith and that somehow each contradict each other.

It seems to me from trying to understand the history of the times in which both lived that each was addressing a different audience in different situations and about different problems. Paul in order to combat the converted Pharisees that were teaching the converted Gentiles that circumcision and other works of the law of Moses were necessary for the Gentile converts to Christianity and is foundation of one’s salvation. to which Paul refutes. James on the other hand in combatting the teachings of converted Pharisees who were saying that professing faith in God is enough for salvation. James is stressing that Christians must put their faith into concrete action.

So it seems that Protestants taking their cue from Luther that believe James presents a doctrine of justification based on works; contradicting the teachings of Paul. Luther referred to the book of James as an Epistle of straw in comparing it to Paul’s writings. Paul on the other hand was saying that the law of Moses is not what saves one but faith in Christ Jesus, and this bears out what Paul in general says in his Epistles that following the law of Moses does not save or doing the works of the law of Moses but that one is justified by Christ Jesus thereby doing good works out of love for Christ not doing good work in order to be somehow justified. James says that faith without doing good works is dead, that if one has faith in Christ than one does good works because faith takes action. This is just MO as to the Justification that seems to be somewhat of a major hindrance based upon the difference between Lutheran interpretations using SS. I only mention this because of you mentioning justification and that there is a difference between Lutheran and Catholic understanding of what it means.